Internet Porn Site Regulation

Quote:This is both morally wrong and deeply unfair to parents who are faced with the invidious choice of allowing children to use platforms they are too young to access, or excluding them from social interaction that often the majority of their peers are engaging in.”

theres the thing. parents allowing there kids to access platforms there to young to use...
so he's saying its not our fault (legal adults) but parents. which is correct. so why are we (adults of legal age) being punitively punished... surely its the parents of these kids who need to be educated. and saying its because there peers are using it as an excuse, is no excuse at all, as they shouldn't be using the platforms either.

being fair to parents who cant be bothered to look at what there kids are doing online... WHY!?.

yeah this argument is full of holes that would be squashed if any 1 was willing to stand up to it.
its not the majority of adults using porn thats the problem its lazy parents. and as such its the parents that need to be held to account not every 1 else.

(14-05-2018 13:28 )BarrieBF Wrote:  You presume wrong. The existing proposal is for cards to be issued by private operators. No money would go to the government and no money would go to the BBFC. But I suppose the cards could be made VATable, in which case the government would be able to pocket the VAT, although I don't think the BBFC have got to that stage of thinking yet.

Hello Barrie. I salute your forward thinking in considering the VAT implications of these cards, but as things stand they would definitely be subject to VAT, so the government would in fact get a piece of the pie.

(14-05-2018 13:28 )BarrieBF Wrote:  It's not the cost of providing the cards that really matters. What does matter is how much private operators would need to make in order to make it worthwhile for them to issue the cards and how much retailers would need to make in order to make it worthwhile for them to sell the cards. I suspect the price of a tenner may be guesswork at this stage.

I agree with your general point, that the price needs to be viable for the card supplier, but the £10 isn't guesswork. The BBFC were given that figure by a prospective supplier who said that would be their price.

They are threatening to go after the social media sites now :

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44188805

This threat might have more teeth if they could actually sort the AV for porn sites out first, as it is, the social media sites must be laughing at the very idea, hence why they snubbed the government in the first place

again with the underage kids using social media. again its the parents responsibility to look at what there kids are doing on line not government, the companies clearly state "YOUR" in breach of there terms and conditions if you dont meet the age requirment.

these clowns just want to make money and censor what we read and consume by dividing up the internet, its nothing to do with protecting the children. they just see social media sites making billions in advertising and the government wants its cut.

^ Anyone think the sudden switch to attacking social media is anything to do with how influencential it has become to the outcome of elections and public opinion in general. The Conservatives are by all reports not succeeding in convincing the public to vote their way on there despite sinking large sums of money into dedicated advertising. At the same time they will not pursue Leveson 2 and curtail the standard press. Would this be because they have a huge tradition of largely favourable printed press in this country and are deeply in bed with its moguls? Control of message could be a nice apparently collateral outcome of both these ideas.

And while we are on the political favourable actions angle: I find the timing of the pushed back in AV implementation interesting. Did the government get advanced wind that the Facebook data scandal was coming? Even if the BBFC had been ready with their kitchen sink scheme it would have been far harder to say in the press 'give up your data it'll be fine' while the very next page had direct evidence of previous misuse.

(The Guardian...

A social media exec Wrote:There’s no detail on what they’re going to do... Are they going to legislate against ‘inappropriate things’? In Whitehall, it’s very difficult to sign off on something that’s not defined.

My suspicion is they’ll have 18 months of going around the houses and when they write it down they’ll find a lot of these issues don’t take well to legal definition.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...to-reality )

^ Not just the Facebook business, but the roll-out of GDPR as well. Imagine launching the AV scheme with all the concern about these companies collecting such sensitive data, and within a few weeks, everyone's inbox is filling with warning messages about GDPR and the protection of your data!
Might not have gone down well

Got to love the hypocrisy from the government here, lecturing social media firms to stamp out bullying & harassment and other unpleasant behaviour on social media yet it can’t get it’s own house in order regarding bullying & harassment and other unpleasant behaviour at the Palace of Westminster.

I think it’s another case of the government talking tough yet nothing will happen given they’ve already kicked into the long grass age verification for porn sites, they announced it less than 24hrs after the royal wedding hoping people wouldn’t notice and it’s already been kicked into the long grass by having a consultation

^ Under this government a consultation period seems to equal: 'We want this new legislation but haven't a clue how to work it and are scared how the detail will go down with the electorate. So are going to talk about it for a long time until everyone gets bored and accepts it as a fait accompli.'

Then we get this genuis...

Matt Hancock Wrote:The more tech bigwigs I meet in my job, the more I notice they protect their own children from this technology in the same way I protect my children, I was very struck by that.

(https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/20/tory-mini...m-7562339/ )

Erm yes, so you're presenting us with several examples of good parenting. In other words, you've just seen why legislation is not needed. What is his point here?!

It's funny isn't it that the cause for this proposed legislation appears to be that a government minister was affronted by certain companies lack of respect for his assumed authority. Like Ofcom before them, it seems as if had the companies attended the meeting with Hancock MP and tugged the furlock they would have gotten off lighter. But I ask you is that really anyway to decide what forms the laws of the land?

In the meantime over the course of the next two years we have to read and listen to bullshit conflation arguments like this one:

Barnardo’s chief executive officer Javed Khan Wrote:We have long seen the harm that online can bring to children’s lives, our own child sexual abuse services saw a 38 per cent increase last year in children referred. Online can be a force for good but the ease of exploitation of children must be tackled.

(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po...60081.html )

1. There are already laws against grooming online.
2. Where is this guy's evidence that his 38% is anything to do with social media? They make these assertions and they just disappear into the accepted discourse without challenge or even discussion. The subject seems inviolate to imperical scrutiny at times.

It all comes across a bit desperate and futile to me. But at least they can say "we had a bash" at trying to protect kids from an unstoppable force, AKA - the internet.
So when it all fails and Johnny junior is still smashing himself to death every night, can I get a refund on that £10

thing is 38% can be pretty much any actual number when its not tied to real numbers.

ie: gun violence in the uk went up 50% in the uk last year... there was 30 shootings as opposed to 20 the previous year.
but say it went up by 50% without any context makes it sound theres horrendous amounts of gun violence. when per capita, the real numbers just don't bare out.

the same goes for barnardo's claims. in 2016 just over 700 kids were helped by there sexual abuse/child exploitation services. which puts there 2017 numbers at roughly 1000.
sure thats 1000 to many but per capita its a tiny fraction of the population of children under 18.
but there boss saying a 38% increase, is way more disturbing and dramatic than giving the real world number.

this is why rights groups are saying the governments response to age verification is disproportionate and dangerous.
in truth the money they would have to spend getting this to work in any meaningful way (billions) would be better spent on policing and tracking these abusers online, likely cheaper too.

forcing law abiding adults into identify themselves via some shady adult verification process owned by the world leading porn provider on a done for profit, wont protect there identity, or ensure anonymity. (any 1 who says this can be done with anonymity is lying, for real..) will bring more harm than good.